2K vs 4K



Quote:
Originally Posted by shepman72 /forum/post/19461137


Someone who is a serious authority on the issue swears that the human eye cannot distinguish between 2K and 4K, and that 4K is actually something of a scam.

Click to expand...

Had this person actually been as you describe him, rather than a total ass clamp, he would know that such a statement is beyond idiotic.


The resolvability of any resolution is dependant on the distance from which it is viewed. That is why visual acuity is measured in angular terms rather than any given resolution. Its obvious your so called "serious authority", is utterly bereft of actual familiarity with the topic at even the most basic level. On what basis does he warrant such a description?


Imagine 2k and 4k images of the same size projected next to each other. Now move back from the screen and at some point the images will be indistinguishable. Move far enough back and both images will be indistinguishable from a single giant pixel. Move further back and they will, at some point, become invisible. Now put your nose to the screen and you will see that one image has pixels 4 times larger that the other.


The difference between 2k and 4k, assuming an appropriate viewing distance, is significant.

I had a feeling this question would get this sort of reaction, though "ass clamp" is a new one for me! Well, I'm just trying to learn more about the subject. Also, note that I'm trying to determine what's best for a 100-seat public screening room, not a home theater.


I did, though, read John Galt's essay on 2K, 4K and pixels. It's referenced on this site.


In this essay, he writes:


"So if you had true 4K resolution in your local theater, everybody would have to sitting in the first 6 rows. Otherwise they wouldn't see any extra detail. Their eyes wouldn't LET them see it. You know this intuitively from passing by these beautiful new monitors at trade shows. You find yourself getting absolutely as close as possible to see the detail, and to see if there are any visible artifacts. At normal viewing distances, you can't.


So the whole 2K 4K thing is a little bit of a red herring."


I could very well be completely misunderstanding his argument, but it seems that 2K vs 4K is definitely more complicated than I thought.


Thanks for everyone's information.

You have two concerns here:


1. Source resolution. Currently the best consumer format is still "2K" (really 1920). So if you feed that to a 4K or 2K projector, the picture will remain the same for the most part. The only difference is that the 4K projector will have smaller pixels and as such, if you sit very close to it, its image will look smoother. The price for that, other than cost of the unit, is that the image itself may also be perceived to be softer than the 2K picture.


2. If you have 4K source, will you notice the difference when projected at 2K vs 4K. Here, the common answer given is on the web is incorrect in that they advertise fixed ratios and calculators as if the eye has a step function in its ability to resolve detail. It does not. Think of the eye as having a "low pass filter" that varies with distance. The more you move back, the more you lose proportionally. So the notion that the first 6 rows show certain resolution and the 7th doesn't at all is wrong.


So the big question for you is are your sources above Blu-ray and broadcast. If the source is computer driving say, high resolution images, then 4K will definitely bring better resolution and finer images if you sit close enough. I have seen the 4K JVC projector and it indeed has this benefit. If you don't have high resolution source, then the benefits are much less and are only merited if people sit very close to the screen.


If I had a 4K projector and 4K source then I would make sure sufficient number of people can sit in the sweet spot to see the benefit.

Quote:


Agreed that his source is an ass clamp and is clearly an authority in his own underachieving delusional mind.

Dr. Hans Kiening from ARRI has written an article; Theory Basics for Motion Picture Imaging 4K+ Systems, that is very much better and interesting than the views and misconceptions that are presented by Panavision's John Galt.

Even if it was originally written in 2008 and thereby not updated on the recent developments. (the John Galt interview is one year old).

It counters all the arguments that the human eye can not perceive the quality of a 4K or higher resolution image.


As digital motion image capture (and projection) technologies qualities rapidly becomes better, everything in this paper becomes more true.


Direct link to the pdf; http://www.arri.de/?eID=registration&file_uid=3525

or from the bottom of this page; http://www.arri.de/camera/tutorials/...e_imaging.html

I try to caution myself regularly concerning the difference between theory and practice. As John Galt's article and the linked videos attempt to show, there are many technical variables that come into play between the camera lens and the projection screen. Important as well are the practical perceptual characteristics and inherent limitations of the human visual system. A very large factor in both systems is how motion is processed.


Best regards and beautiful pictures,

G. Alan Brown, President

CinemaQuest, Inc.

A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate


"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Quote:
Then you lost my respect, ON ONE TITLE of about SIX I saw .


You could sit at one half screen height up-converted on the fly 2k to 4k with Yogi Bear. That movie is eye candy and it looked incredible on a 65 foot wide screen sitting from a measly 6 rows center, now the other clips did not fare so well,Harry potter showed mosquito noise but the Yogi Bear is case in point THAT IT CAN look fabulously well.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger /forum/post/19481919


Peter you are always pushing beyond elite product in an elite forum targeting elite clientele why would you settle for content designed for j6p flat screen displays.

No doubt there will always be the few titles the studios left alone but truth is the majority of transfers are not reference & jumping from 2k to 4k does not fix content DNR/EE filtering.

Even in the 2k world there has been the hope for beyond BD hence the demand for DCinema content in the home.

In a chain of events Id skip 4k for better source then move to 4k, of course Id want both. Content is our weakest link.

The chicken & egg scenario, one always come first pushing the other to advance sooner.

In this case lets hope the addition of 4k displays will send an industry alert demanding better transfers in order to maximize the new platform.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree, and BTW I meant to say I LOST YOUR RESPECT and not the other way around . I too want both, but film to 4k transfers looked fantastic in dci content 14 feet wide, so yes if the Deluxe satellite scenario works out it will be great to have. I am prewiring for it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich /forum/post/19482542


Deluxe satellite? What's that?

Click to expand...